OTTAWA — Two separate parliamentary investigations into the $90,000 payment Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff made to Sen. Mike Duffy are likely to be suspended now that the upper chamber has officially called in the RCMP.

That means it could take months, if not longer, before Canadians receive answers about the financial deal Duffy made with Nigel Wright to cover the repayment of Duffy’s questionable expense claims.

Duffy was not on Parliament Hill Wednesday when the Senate decided to send his case to the Mounties.

It wasn’t immediately clear whether the decision would halt an investigation by Senate Ethics Officer Lyse Ricard. Sen. Raynell Andreychuk, chair of the Senate’s conflict of interest committee, said a referral to the RCMP can’t suspend an ethics probe; an official police investigation would need to be underway.

Ricard’s office wouldn’t directly answer questions about the status of her investigation or the effect the RCMP referral would have.

In any case, the RCMP doesn’t normally comment on whether it is launching an investigation. Generally, only if criminal charges are laid will the force confirm an investigation and the identities of those involved, RCMP spokeswoman Cpl. Lucy Shorey said Wednesday.

“Based upon an evaluation of the information provided, the RCMP may or may not initiate an investigation,” Shorey said. “The RCMP is not in a position to comment further on this specific matter at this time.”

Some senators said Wednesday they don’t want to see the ethics investigations come to a close.

“This is an ethical issue, isn’t it?” Sen. Jim Munson told reporters. “We have to put ourselves in a position where we have a higher ethical standard than others.”

Meanwhile, federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson is continuing — for the time being — her investigation into Wright’s activities. Asked whether the investigation into Wright’s actions will be halted, a spokesperson for the ethics commissioner said Wednesday “at this point no determination has been made.” The official pointed to section 49 of the Conflict of Interest Act, which requires Dawson to “immediately suspend” her probe if it’s believed an offence under an act of Parliament has been committed, or if the matter is referred to police for an investigation, or if a charge has been laid.

Dawson was forced to halt an investigation under section 49 of the act in November 2011 into former senior Harper aide Bruce Carson’s post-employment obligations, after his case became the subject of a separate investigation.

The RCMP charged Carson in July 2012 with “fraud on the government,” also known as influence-peddling, following a lengthy investigation that began in March 2011. Carson’s case was to go to trial in July 2013.

As the uncertainty continued over who, if anyone, would do any further probing of the Senate case, government Senate leader Marjory LeBreton said the expense scandal has “exposed some very serious problems in the Senate administration.”

LeBreton said the upper chamber’s internal economy committee will now have to decide whether to review the audits of three other senators – Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb and Pamela Wallin – in addition to its work on Duffy.

Asked whether Duffy still has a place in the Senate, LeBreton said there are some people in the upper chamber who “betrayed us.”

The internal economy committee examining Duffy’s Senate expense claims unanimously voted late Tuesday to refer the matter to the RCMP, including Duffy’s repayment of $90,000 in improper living expenses after he received a cheque from Wright. The full Senate endorsed the RCMP referral Wednesday.

Duffy was not in the Senate for the vote, despite asking for a public inquiry last week so that Canadians would receive all the facts of his case. The lights were off in his office and his Senate mail package was still leaning against the door when the Senate rose for the day Wednesday.

“Sen. Duffy had asked for a public inquiry and he got it. He had an opportunity to defend himself,” said Munson, a Liberal member of the internal economy committee. “Due process has been undertaken and he didn’t show and we moved on.”

The committee heard from Senate finance officials that Duffy claimed per diems in Ottawa on 49 days between April 2011 and March 2012, including days when records suggest he wasn’t in Ottawa. He was paid for only 25 of those 49 claims, officials said.

Senators were told that auditor Deloitte’s findings in relation to per diems Duffy claimed in January 2012 while in Florida were “not an isolated incident” but were part of a concerning pattern with Duffy’s expenses claims.

The Senate financial department, which oversees claims, had started to become suspicious about Duffy’s expense claims, but was unable to put together the pieces to see the pattern made public this week, said a Senate source with knowledge of Duffy’s review. The Senate’s finance department isn’t designed to be a forensic auditing team, but rather a group of accountants who ensure receipts are properly submitted and questionable claims referred to the internal economy committee, the source said.

That raised questions Wednesday about whether other senators may have abused the system through false housing claims, as Harb and Brazeau have alleged publicly, or through daily meal allowances — or per diems — of about $85 afforded to senators while on parliamentary business in Ottawa or elsewhere in the country.

“It’s a great question, but again when the Senate committee, the leaders of the Senate committee sit down that’s one of the issues they will have to address,” Sen. Larry Smith, a Conservative member of the internal economy committee, said.

Sen. David Tkachuk, chairman of the internal economy committee, said senators are going to examine how per diems are claimed, although he didn’t put specific timelines or parameters on such a study.

“I think that those issues are going to be examined. Let’s put it that way,” he told reporters Wednesday. “We can examine them ourselves and if …we are not able to do it ourselves we can also have someone else do it. I have to discuss it with internal economy.”

Senators who have claims rejected can plead their case before the three-member executive of the internal economy committee. The Senate source, who would only speak on condition of anonymity because of the person was not authorized to speak publicly, said Duffy never took that opportunity even after several of his expense claims were rejected.

The Senate itself wouldn’t answer questions Wednesday about how many times expense claims had been flagged to the internal economy committee.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to tighten spending rules, including limiting travel spending and killing the so-called “honour system” rule for claiming expenses, often without formal receipts.

“There is nothing in the rule changes that would have prevented what is alleged to have happened here,” said Liberal Senate leader James Cowan.

With the audit on Duffy’s expenses now referred to the RCMP, questions are mounting about whether the audits of Harb, Brazeau and possibly Wallin – whose initial audit has not yet even been reported – should go back to the Senate’s internal economy committee for another review.

“That will be a decision for internal economy,” LeBreton said.

Harb’s audit is still before the Senate and could be sent back to the committee, Cowan said. He didn’t take a position on whether it should be sent back, but Cowan said reopening Brazeau’s audit is more difficult because the Senate has already voted to force him to repay about $48,000 in expense claims.

The internal economy committee also has yet to deal with the outstanding issue of an audit of Wallin’s travel expenses. The auditors have asked for more time to conduct a wider review of her spending, which has topped $300,000 over the past three years.

The internal economy committee has been told her audit will be submitted by the end of June, but committee members want those findings as soon as possible.

Wallin did not respond to questions put to her Wednesday. Her assistant, Mark Fisher, would only say that Wallin would answer questions once the audit is released.

Meanwhile, Ontario’s premier weighed in Wednesday on the usefulness of the upper chamber – directly contradicting her predecessor.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne told reporters in Toronto, “I actually believe there is a role for a chamber of sober second thought, but that there is always room for reform, and I think that the discussion of what those reforms should be is an important one. It’s certainly something that at the provincial level I would be interested in engaging with my colleagues across the country, but I do believe having that second chamber is valuable, but there’s room for reform.”

Asked if she will put the issue on the agenda of the Council of the Federation meeting this summer, which Ontario is hosting, Wynne said, “It’s not something I have taken a firm or detailed stand on, but it’s certainly something I’m willing to engage on.”

Last week, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall called for the outright abolition of the Senate. And Wynne’s predecessor, Dalton McGuinty said on his Twitter account back in 2011: “Ontario’s position on Senate reform: abolish the Senate.”

Senior Parliament Hill reporter for the Ottawa Citizen, politics junkie, wannabe pro golfer and someone who has wordsmithed at newspapers in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I've covered politics at... read more every level, including city hall in Ottawa and Calgary, the Alberta legislature in Edmonton and now back in Ottawa covering the Hill.View author's profile